PRIMITIVE MAH IN CHINA SMITH 537 



nearly to man than any other known anthropoid ape. Another 

 possibility, he says, is that the tooth may be that of a human being 

 which in some way became displaced and got into the Tertiary 

 beds although belonging to a more recent period. He suggests, 

 for instance, that possibly the tooth was only of Pleistocene age, 

 which raises the difficulty that the state of fossilization is such 

 as he has found only in teeth which are either Tertiary in age 

 or are referable to the very beginning of the Pleistocene. He ad- 

 mits that he can not pretend to distinguish between the state of 

 fossilization between the earliest Pleistocene and the Tertiary. He 

 admits that a definite answer to this riddle must necessarily be only 

 tentative — for no other early human remains except Pithecanthropus 

 were then available for comparison. No useful purpose would be 

 served by comparing this third molar tooth (with its marked differ- 

 ence in size and much more strongly reduced roots) with the tooth 

 of Pithecanthropus^ the roots of which were much more exception- 

 ally divergent. He calls particular attention to the fact that the 

 fossil found in China presents a much nearer likeness to the tooth 

 from the Indian Siwaliks which Lydekker has described as Troglo- 

 dytes sivalensis, to which Dubois refers as PalcBopithecus sivalensis. 

 The third molar tooth in this Indian anthropoid presents a close 

 resemblance to the Chinese tooth. It is distinguished, however, only 

 by relatively slight differences in size and the position of the roots. 

 After detailed comparisons between these teeth of fossil anthro- 

 poids and primitive men (including Pithecanthropus and the Nean- 

 derthal remains from Krapina) Schlosser refers to the possibility 

 that the tooth from Peking may be the remains of the oldest human 

 being known at that time and one that displayed a closer likeness to 

 the apes than any other known fossil. While admitting that, how- 

 ever unpardonable it might be tacitly to evade the issue, it is im- 

 portant to try to define a systematic position which obviously 

 could not be finally determined by the scanty evidence at that time 

 available. 



Hence he defines the aim of his communication to suggest to later 

 investigators who may enjoy the privilege of carrjdng out excava- 

 tions in China the desirability of searching for the remains either 

 of a new fossil anthropoid, a Tertiary man, or an Early Pleistocene 

 human being. In recording the complete realization of the third 

 possibility adumbrated by the veteran German paleontologist, it 

 would be unpardonable not to refer to Professor Schlosser's insight 

 and courage. He correctly predicted the age and the nature of the 

 type of being whose damaged tooth came into his possession without 

 any indication either of its provenance or of the geological circum- 

 stances under which it had been recovered. One can not withhold 



